SHALL WE HAVE 
A. CREED? 


E. Hersury SNEATH 


THE CENTURY CO. 
NEW YORK AND LONDON 








Kin OF PRINGE % 
ual (27 ae io 

“x, 5 
LOL og ign ge 






eit SRSAG Rs ENS sy Tee | 
sneath, Elias Hershey, 1857- 

eA ee | 
Shall we have a creed? | 











SHALL WE HAVE 
A CREED? 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https ://archive.org/details/shallwehavecreed00snea 


QR CE UACE > 
/ WV 









< 

A 
SHALL WE Ha¥ 
A CREED? 





/ BY 
E. HERSHEY \GNEATH, Pu.D., LL.D. 


PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION 
AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, YALE UNIVERSITY 





THE CENTURY CO. 
New York & London 


Copyright, 1925, by 
THE CENTURY CO. 


PRINTED IN U. 8. A. 


THE VAIL-BALLOU PRESS 
BINGHAMTON AND NEW YORK 


PREFACE 


This book embodies the substance of 
an address delivered by the under- 
signed, as President of the Theological 
Society, before that organization at its 
last annual meeting in New York. 
The address was repeated before the 
Convocation of the Divinity School of 
‘Yale University held in April, 1925. 
A number of those who heard it have 
expressed a wish that it might reach a 
larger audience through publication. 
The author has complied with their re- 
quest, earnestly hoping that it may be 
of some service to the Christian Church 
in this period of controversy and strife. 

E. HersHrty SNEATH. 


New Haven, Connecticut, 
August, 1925. 





CONTENTS 


OHAPTER PAGE 
I Reticiovs VaLtures—IlIuHE CREED . 3 


II Arcuments IN Favor oFf THE 


Ciera pera 1h LT a TN | Be A ACT A 
III Ossections To THE Creep. . 24 
IV Tue Destrapiuiry or A CrEED . 46 


V ToxeraTion anp Unity . . . 68 





SHALL WE Haves A CREED? 





SHALL WE HAVE A CREED? 


CHAPTER I 


RELIGIOUS VALUES.—THE CREED 


note a pathos bordering on tragedy 
in the inestimable loss to the race 
due to a failure to develop a true sense 
of values. We are creatures of inher- 


|: reviewing the history of man we 


itance and are governed largely by its 
authority, often accepting what it gives 
with little or no reflective consideration 
of its worth. ‘This is so in practically 
every department of life. In the social 
sphere we are born into society the in- 


[3] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


teraction of whose members is largely 
determined by customs handed down 
from one generation to another and 
which, as a rule, are received without 
earnest inquiry into either their intrinsic 
or relative value. In the political realm 
we are born under government, the 
form of which the average individual 
unreflectively and unhesitatingly ac- 
cepts. If it be a republic, well and 
good. If it be a monarchy, well and 
good. Occasionally there are rebellions 
and revolutions, based upon independ- 
ent thought, but on the whole, certain 
forms of government have endured for 
centuries, receiving loyal support hav- 
ing no foundation in thoughtful esti- 
mates of their merits on the part of their 
subjects. In religion, the sphere of 


[4] 


Religious Values—The Creed 


supreme values, the same attitude is 
manifest. We are Buddhists, Chris- 
tians or Mohammedans by inheritance. 
We were, so to speak, born into one of 
these religions, and accept it quite gen- 
erally on the authority of that inherit- 
ance. Reason, on the whole, plays very 
little part in the acceptance of religious 
beliefs and in the development of re- 
ligious loyalty. And, what is true of 
the great religions, is true with refer- 
ence to sectarian interpretations of a 
religion. In the United States the 
Christian Church is divided into 186 
sects, originally based on a difference 
in conceptions of worth. But, so far 
as the adherents of these denominations 
to-day are concerned, they, in general, 
accept the evaluation of their forbears 


[5] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


with little or no rational questioning. 
Here, too, there are exceptions, but a 
careful examination will reveal the fact 
that these exceptions merely prove the 
rule. 

Now, inheritance in the social, politi- 
cal, and religious spheres is undoubtedly 
a good. Progress were impossible 
without it, and a proper regard for its 
authority, as based often on centuries 
of experience, is obligatory upon us. 
But an unconsidered and unevaluated 
acceptance of it has been, and is to-day, 
a serious loss to progress. It has often 
resulted in disregarding higher values 
for lower ones, and in perpetuating the 
accepted supremacy of the latter. This 
is especially true within the sphere of 
religion. In some instances our ances- 


[6] 


Religious Values—The Creed 


tors have had a mistaken sense of val- 
ues and many of their offspring have 
blindly accepted their conceptions and 
closed their eyes to higher worths within 
this sacred sphere. Because of the im- 
portance and sanctity of the subject, 
and the almost instinctive veneration 
that we have for the authority of age, 
any attempt at modification of, or sub- 
stitution for, these evaluations is often 
viewed with disfavor and frequently at- 
tended by persecution. ‘The history of 
religious martyrdom is a striking testi- 
mony to the truthfulness of this state- 
ment, and the less brutal, but cruel ani- 
mosity that, throughout the history of 
religion, especially of the Christian re- 
ligion, has attended a departure from 
generally accepted estimates, corrobo- 


[7] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


rates it. There is really no more vital 
question and no more sacred and im- 
perative obligation confronting the 
Church to-day than that of determining 
the real value of the recognized religious 
values, and, by a comparative study of 
them, ascertaining what is the supreme 
essential of our religion. ‘There are 
those who emphasize the intellectual 
worths. With them religion is prima- 
rily an intellectual belief—an accept- 
ance of dogma or creed. There are oth- 
ers who stress mystical experience. Re- 
ligion is primarily something subjective, 
experiential, an inner life in which the 
soul immediately apprehends and com- 
munes with God. Still others empha- 
size what may be broadly characterized 
as the esthetic factors in religion—the 


[8] 


Religious Values—The Creed 


aspects of worship. ‘Then there are 
those who lay great stress on the ethical 
element. With them the very heart of 
religion is righteousness—individual 
and social. The supreme objective is 
the establishment of the kingdom of 
righteousness in the world. As men 
usually act on the basis of these evalua- 
tions, it is quite apparent that most of 
our difficulties in the Church are the 
outgrowth of a failure to determine 
properly spiritual worths. It is not 
our purpose to deal with this subject in 
its entirety, but to treat merely one 
form of the intellectual values of re- 
ligion—the so-called creed. It has 
played a conspicuous part in the history 
of the Church. About it some of the 
fiercest controversies have raged, and it 


[9] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


has been responsible for some of our 
most serious divisions. Its power does 
not seem to be on the wane to any con- 
siderable extent. Here and there a few 
individuals or groups may free them- 
selves from its fetters; but, on the 
whole, the millions who constitute our 
Church membership to-day are dom- 
inated by a creed so far as their reli- 
gious belief is concerned, and its sup- 
posed sacredness and infallibility are 
still guarded with zealous care. It 
seems to the writer that the discussion 
of this subject is especially opportune 
at this time in view of the widespread 
disturbance within the borders of the 
Church which is undoubtedly due pri- 
marily to a failure on the part of many 
to estimate properly the creed. 


[10] 


CHAPTER II 


ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE CREED 


ECALLING Spinoza’s sage 
R remark, that “all definition is 

perilous,” we may proceed cau- 
tiously to define a creed as a formal 
statement of beliefs on the part of some 
authorized individual or body of indi- 
viduals acceptance of which is supposed 
to be essential to the Church’s welfare 
or the salvation of the individual. With 
this definition, an impartial evaluation 
of it may be attempted. In reviewing 
the literature of creed and dogma, espe- 
cially such works as those of Dunlop, 


[11] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


Swainson, Hahn, Hoefling, Mohler, 
Schaff, Burn, Green, Winer, and later 
works such as those of Curtis and 
Skrine, as well as the standard works 
in Christian Dogmatics and the His- 
tory of Doctrine, we are presented with 
practically all that can be said in favor 
of the creed. These claims may be 
briefly stated as follows:— 

First, it is urged that a creed is help- 
ful because, by stating what is deemed 
to be essential Christian truth, it differ- 
entiates Christianity from other reli- 
gions. Indeed! this is given by some 
as the first raison d’étre of the creed. 
It aimed to distinguish Christianity 
from Judaism and other religions of the 
time. In the same way it may be con- 
ceived of as helpful today, especially in 

[12] 


Arguments in Favor of the Creed 


missionary lands, to point out to those 
whom we would convert the likenesses 
and differences of the teachings of 
Christianity and those of Buddhism, 
Mohammedanism, Confucianism, etc. 
Thus the creed subserves a very useful 
purpose in Christian propaganda. 

Again, it is claimed that within the 
Christian Church itself a creed is help- 
ful in enabling Christians to distinguish 
between truth and error, orthodoxy and 
heterodoxy, as they relate to Christian 
belief. All along the line of the devel- 
opment of the Church there have been 
deviations from what is supposed by 
many to be the essential truth of the 
Christian religion. It is thought that 
the standardizing of belief tends to pre- 
vent such departures. 


[13] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 





Furthermore, since differences of 
opinion and belief with reference to re- 
ligious truth have arisen within the 
Church itself, giving rise to many reli- 
gious sects, creeds are helpful in differ- 
entiating these sects from one another. 
We are thus enabled to distinguish 
Protestant from Catholic, Presbyterian 
from Lutheran, Methodist from Epis- 
copalian, ete. 

Still another claim that is made for 
the creed is that, being a definite state- 
ment of the content of belief, it makes 
for clearness of spiritual conception, 
which, in turn, makes for more or less 
definite purpose and action. When 
there is no creed there is often a nebu- 
losity of mind with reference to things 
religious—a wandering in clouds or 


[14] 


Arguments in Favor of the Creed 


darkness. This inhibits religious ac- 
tivity. Conduct in this sphere, like 
conduct in other spheres, depends for 
its efficiency not only on conception 
and belief, but on their clearness and 
definiteness. Faith needs to be more 
or less centred. A creed facilitates 
this. Many can sympathize with Ten- 
nyson in his plea for, and semi- 
justification of, this definiteness or 
focusing of faith when, in one of the 
cantos of In Memoriam, he says: 


“QO thou that after toil and storm 
Mayst seem to have reach’d a purer air, 
Whose faith has centre everywhere, 
Nor cares to fix itself to form, 


“Leave thou thy sister when she prays 
Her early Heaven, her happy views; 
[15] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


Nor thou with shadow’d hint confuse 
A life that leads melodious days. 


“Her faith thro’ form is pure as thine, 
Her hands are quicker unto good: 
Oh, sacred be the flesh and blood 
To which she links a truth divine! 


“See thou, that countest reason ripe 
In holding by the law within, 
Thou fail not in a world of sin, 

And ev’n for want of such a type.” 


We have a true psychology here. 
There is, undoubtedly, on the part of 
many a desire to articulate belief as an 
aid to faith and conduct. With them 
it cannot have ‘“‘centre everywhere.” It 
must be focused. What Van Oosterzee 
says of dogma is affirmed of the creed, 
viz.: that it is a psychological necessity. 


[16] 


Arguments in Favor of the Creed 


“No one can do without it, since every- 
one seeks for a more or less formulated 
expression of his holiest convictions.” 

Another argument in favor of a creed 
and one that comes with a good deal of 
force is, that organization is really nec- 
essary for the progress of Christianity. 
Organized, systematized effort is much 
more effective than its opposite. Lack 
of organization results in much unnec- 
essary repetition and waste of effort. 
The creed, like the constitution of a civil 
state, furnishes an excellent basis for 
religious organization. Like the civil 
constitution it also proves to be a tie 
binding its members together in unity, 
and, as the old adage truthfully affirms: 
“In union there is strength.” 

Closely related to the reason for the 

[17] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


creed just presented, is another, viz: A 
failure to render religious belief definite 
is often the cause of doubt and skepti- 
cism. It is frequently said, religious 
truth is too vague, too boundless, too 
nebulous, to merit serious consideration ; 
and indifference, skepticism and some- 
times atheism are the fruits of this sense 
of religious vagueness. A creed, by its 
definiteness of statement, in a measure 
helps to curb this tendency. 
Furthermore, it is urged that a creed 
is confession, and, according to the an- 
cient saying, “Confession is good for 
the soul.” Professor James, in _ his 
Varieties of Religious Haperience, 
says that confession is present in most 
religions. ‘There is a desire on the part 


[18] 


Arguments in Favor of the Creed 


of the soul to confess. Some think 
there is an element of “cleansing” in it, 
and, therefore, confess their belief. 
The late Dr. Schaff, in his Creeds of 
Christendom, says that there is not only 
a desire to publicly confess, but that it 
is a duty to do so. “Faith,” he says, 
“like all strong conviction, has a desire 
to utter itself before others—‘Out of 
the abundance of the heart the mouth 
speaketh’; ‘I believe, therefore I con- 
fess’ (Credo, ergo confiteor). ‘There 
is also an express duty, when we are re- 
ceived into the membership of the Chris- 
tian Church, and on every proper occa- 
sion, to profess the faith within us, to 
make ourselves known as followers of 
Christ, and to lead others to Him by the 
[19] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


influence of our testimony.”+? ‘The 
creed, in the judgment of its framers 
and of those whom they represent, ex- 
presses the very essence of Christian 
truth. Acceptance of it is regarded by 
many as essential to salvation, and such 
acceptance in their judgment involves 
confession of it before others. 

Again, it is claimed that a creed sub- 
serves a very useful purpose in religious 
education. It articulates and systema- 
tizes the cardinal doctrines of the Bible 
and thus facilitates instruction in the 
basic truths of the Christian religion. 
It makes the fundamentals of faith 
more easily understandable for the av- 
erage adult and can be framed in cate- 


1The Creeds of Christendom, New York, 1877, Vol. 


I, p. 4. 
[20] 


Arguments in Favor of the Creed 


chetical form so as to become a very 
helpful means in the religious educa- 
tion of children. This is illustrated in 
Luther’s small Catechism, and the 
Heidelberg and Westminster Cate- 
chisms. Furthermore, by systematiz- 
ing and rendering definite and objective 
the essential content of Christian faith, 
it makes it much more intelligible and 
tends to relieve it of a vague and shal- 
low subjectivism. This makes for sci- 
entific religious education which, in 
turn, makes for genuine spiritual 
growth. 

Finally, it may be said in behalf of 
the creed that it is helpful in Christian 
worship. Worship is an essential part 
of religion. It is almost omnipresent 
in its history. ‘The creed may be, and 


[21] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


is, utilized in Christian worship, as, for 
example, the use of the Athanasian 
Creed in the worship of the Latin 
Church in the Middle Ages, and later 
of the Apostles’ Creed in the Lutheran 
and Episcopal Church service. There 
is often something very inspiring and 
spiritually strengthening in the concer- 
ted confession of religious belief. It is 
similar to the exalted feeling that pos- 
sesses the real patriot when he joins in 
singing the national anthem expressive 
of his political sentiments. 

These are the arguments in favor of 
the creed as they may be gathered from 
such works as we have cited, especially 
those of Dunlop and Schaff. Con- 
temporaneous thought in its advocacy 
of the creed, or in the justification of 


[22] 


Arguments in Favor of the Creed 


dogma, really contributes nothing ad- 
ditional. ‘There is truth and force in 
every one of these arguments; most of 
them are well grounded psychologically, 
and, taken as a whole, they constitute 
a strong case in favor of thus standard- 
izing religious belief. However, there 
is another side to the question. Creeds 
are open to very serious objections, and, 
before forming a judgment as to their 
desirability, these objections should be 
carefully considered. 


[23] 


CHAPTER III 


OBJECTIONS TO THE CREED 


REVIEW of the literature on 
A creeds referred to reveals the 

following objections: First, 
of course, is the old one, that, as a rule, 
creeds substitute authority for freedom, 
especially as it relates to the interpreta- 
tion of Scripture and the validity of 
dogma. This makes against progress 
and interferes with the sacred rights of 
the spirit of man. It makes for nar- 
rowness and intolerance, for tyranny 
and persecution. In the earlier creeds, 
such as the Athanasian and the Decrees 


[24] 


Objections to the Creed 


of the Council of Trent, those who dis- 
sent are anathematized. Indeed, a 
double curse upon dissenters consti- 
tuted the final act of this famous Coun- 
cil. We hardly fare any better in the 
Westminster Confession of Faith. 
Here the civil magistrate is invested 
with authority, and it is his duty to 
suppress “all blasphemies and heresies” 
(Ch. XXIII, 8). And in the present 
controversy between the so-called Fun- 
damentalist and Modernist we discover 
much of the same spirit of narrowness 
and intolerance. As we review the his- 
tory of the Church we note that bitter 
persecution and even death have fol- 
lowed in the wake of the creed. ‘This 
substitution of authority for the free- 
dom of private judgment and the free- 


[25] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


dom of conscience in regard to religious 
belief not only obstructs progress within 
the Church, but it is a menace to prog- 
ress in the field of Science. Regarding 
the Bible as infallible, and the creed’s 
interpretation of it as essentially cor- 
rect, its advocates sometimes oppose the 
teaching of Science on questions relat- 
ing especially to Cosmology, Biology, 
and Anthropology when this teaching 
runs counter to that of the interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures represented by 
the creed. The opposition to Science 
and the persecution of sincere inquirers 
after truth on the part of those who 
slavishly adhere to a religious creed 
form a dark page in history, and con- 
stitute one of the most serious objec- 
tions to the adoption of a creed. 


[26] 


Objections to the Creed 


In the second place, the objection is 
urged that the creed is, in a large meas- 
ure, responsible for destroying the unity 
of the Church. We have said, in con- 
sidering the arguments in its favor, that, 
like the constitution of the civil state, it 
is a “bond of union”; but it also proves 
to be the means of creating serious di- 
visions within the Christian fold. And, 
as “in union there is strength,” so in di- 
vision there is often weakness. It is 
productive of confusion, mutual antag- 
onisms, persecution, and waste. Strong 
men will assert their right to private 
judgment, and, when the exercise of 
this results in the development of views 
and convictions that run counter to the 
creed, if these views seem sufficiently 
vital and the convictions be sufficiently 


[27] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


strong, these men proclaim them and 
soon find a following. Not infre- 
quently this results in establishing a re- 
ligious sect, which in turn adopts an- 
other creed—usually a modification of 
the one previously accepted. Of course 
all religious sects do not originate in 
this way. As Professor McComas has 
pointed out, in his Psychology of Reli- 
gious Sects, racial and national, social 
and political conditions are often pri- 
marily responsible for them. Dziffer- 
ences of conception of Church adminis- 
tration constitute another source of the 
rise of religious sects. But, of the nu- 
merous Christian sects, a considerable 
number owe their origin primarily to 
differences of conviction with reference 
to certain theological beliefs embodied 


[28] 


Objections to the Creed 


in a previously accepted creed. This 
seems to be largely true of the Protes- 
tant sects immediately following the 
Reformation,x—the Lutheran, Zwin- 
glian, Reformed, Anglican, and Presby- 
terian. Even in many of those sects 
whose origin was not primarily due to 
differences in doctrinal beliefs, we find 
these creedal differences reflected and 
constituting an obstacle to united Chris- 
tian effort and genuine progress. 
Another objection, closely related to 
the one just considered is, that sectarian 
creeds interfere with Christian propa- 
ganda. Missionaries complain that 
they are greatly hindered in their work 
by creedal differences. They make for 
confusion. ‘Those whom the missionary 
would convert find it difficult, if not, 
[29] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


indeed, impossible, to determine which 
sect really represents Christian truth, 
and ofttimes very naturally take an 
unfavorable attitude toward Christian- 
ity because of radical differences in the 
various creeds. Thus missionary work 
suffers. -It suffers, also, more or less 
from the lack of united effort, compe- 
tition and waste that are characteristic 
of sectarianism in Christian countries. 
Indeed, creedal divisions constitute one 
of the most serious handicaps under 
which the Christian missionary labors. 

Again, it is objected, that the creed 
often causes a reaction in the form of 
indifference, skepticism and infidelity. 
Dunlop, in his Collection of Confes- 
sions of the Church of Scotland, pub- 
lished more than a hundred years ago, 


[30] 


Objections to the Creed 


deals with this objection. If it called for 
consideration then, it certainly does so 
now when a greater tendency to exer- 
cise the right of private judgment exists, 
and when more sectarian creeds abound. 
With a wide diversity of theological 
opinions expressed in creeds, which 
opinions are often contradictory, it not 
infrequently occurs that the would-be 
believer is led almost to distraction and 
then to disgust resulting in indifference 
to things religious. “If good, earnest, 
intelligent people,” he says, “differ so 
widely in their judgment in regard to 
religious truth, and great ecclesiastical 
organizations condemn the teachings of 
one another, what is the ordinary mor- 
tal to do?” Indifference, agnosticism, 
or atheism results in many cases. Men 


[31] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


and women are sometimes led to ask al- 
most as disdainfully and ironically as 
did Pilate: ‘What is truth?’ Read 
such standard works on the History of 
Christian Doctrine as those of Hagen- 
bach, Shedd, and Harnack, or the later 
volumes of Sheldon, Fisher, Seeberg, 
and Loofs, and note the conflict of 
opinion all along the line of the develop- 
ment of ‘Christian thought. The intel- 
ligent layman sees in this development 
“eonfusion worse confounded.’ Note, 
also, the difference and conflict of opin- 
ion to-day. Are we any nearer an 
agreement in our systems of dogma, 
sometimes summarized and made au- 
thoritative by the creed, than men of 
preceding centuries? Does the Ro- 
man Catholic represent the truth? 


[32] 


Objections to the Creed 


The Protestant says, “No!” Does the 
Trinitarian represent the truth? The 
Unitarian says, “No!” Does the Pres- 
byterian, with his Westminster inherit- 
ance, represent the truth? The Mod- 
ernist says, “No!” Does the Anglo- 
Catholic represent the truth? The av- 
erage American Episcopalian says, 
“No!” Does Christian Science repre- 
sent the truth? Scores of Christian de- 
nominations say, “No!” Well, then, 
replies your earnest, intelligent layman 
seeking after truth in this sacred sphere, 
“What is truth?” It is easily under- 
stood how such differences and conflict 
of thought and belief in our theologies 
and creeds are creative of doubt, indif- 
ference, agnosticism, and sometimes of 
atheism. ‘This is, indeed, one of the 
[33] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


serious’ evils with which the Church 
must reckon. We have, of course, sim- 
ilar differences and conflicts in other 
spheres of thought and belief, but they 
do not clothe themselves with the sa- 
cred authority and power of the reli- 
gious creed, hence we can adjust our- 
selves more easily to them. 

Still another objection may be urged 
against the creed—one that, in the writ- 
er’s judgment, has not been sufficiently 
dealt with. It is its frequent lack of a 
true sense of values as these relate to the 
means for realizing the great end of 
the Christian religion. According to 
the teachings of Jesus, the real aim of 
our religion is the establishment of the 
Kingdom of God in the world and this 
Kingdom is a Kingdom of Righteous- 

[34] 


Objections to the Creed 


ness. The moral values, in other words, 
are the supreme values of life, and 
salvation means a realization of these 
transcendent worths. Now, in some 
instances, we find acceptance of the 
creed as a whole, and in others accept- 
ance, at least, of certain articles, af- 
firmed as necessary for salvation. Non- 
acceptance of them means the eternal 
loss of the soul. For example, take the 
Athanasian Creed. It was not only 
authoritative in the Latin Church in 
the Middle Ages, but later it was re- 
garded by Protestants with great re- 
spect. Dr. Schaff says, “It was for- 
mally adopted by the Lutheran and 
several of the Reformed Churches, and 
is approvingly mentioned in the Augs- 
burg Confession, the Form of Concord, 


[35] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


the Thirty-nine Articles, the Second 
Helvetic, the Belgic, and the Bohemian 
Confessions’’; * and only fifty years ago 
it figured in the service of the Church 
of England on certain festival days.’ 
This historic and influential creed opens 


with the words: 


1. “Whosoever will be saved: before all 
things it is necessary that he hold the Cath- 
olic Faith; 

2. Which Faith except everyone do keep 
whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall 


perish everlastingly.” 


This creed, acceptance of which in its 
totality is affirmed to be absolutely es- 
sential for salvation, embodies a meta- 


1The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I, p. 40. 
2Tbid., p. 41. 
3Ibid., Vol. II, p. 66. 


[36] 


Objections to the Creed 


physical doctrine of the Trinity, which 
seems almost to involve a contradiction; 
also doctrines of the incarnation, Christ’s 
descent into Hades, his resurrection and 
ascension, his second coming, the bodily 
resurrection of the dead, the immortal 
reward of the good, and the penalty of 
everlasting fire for the evil. According 
to its conception of the essential condi- 
tions of salvation, Unitarians, Univers 
salists, many Congregationalists, many, 
if not all, Modernists will have to burn 
everlastingly. Now, if the end of the 
Christian religion be the attainment of 
righteousness, will anyone, believer or 
nonbeliever in, for example, this meta- 
physical conception of the Godhead, tell 
us just how such a belief conditions the 
attainment of righteousness—that is, of 


[37] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


salvation—more than belief in a per- 
sonal God of righteousness not pos- 
sessed of this triune nature? How does 
it make one more honest, more truthful, 
more just, more pure, more loving? In 
other words, just how much more does 
the Trinitarian rather than the Uni- 
tarian view of the Godhead make for 
what Jesus expressed to be the whole 
sum of man’s duty; or of what is nec- 
essary to inherit eternal life: ‘Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy strength, and with all thy 
mind; and thy neighbor as thyself’? 
A man who does this is saved according 
to both Christian and philosophical eth- 
ics, for he realizes in his own life the 
highest values, and what higher salva- 


[38] 


Objections to the Creed 


tion is there than this?) The same ques- 
tion might be asked in regard to other 
articles of this famous creed. In what 
respect does belief in bodily resurrec- 
tion enable one better to love God with 
all his heart and his neighbor as him- 
self, than belief in personal immortality 
without such bodily resurrection? And 
why should one who believes in the 
immortality of the soul, but not in the 
resurrection of the literal body, be 
“morally” penalized in the form of be- 
ing compelled everlastingly to burn in 
the fiery pit? Fortunately, most of 
our Church creeds do not take the ex- 
treme position of the Athanasian Creed 
in making acceptance of its articles ab- 
solutely necessary for salvation. But 
many of them, while not taking this ex- 


[39] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


treme attitude, seem to be guilty of a 
mistaken sense of religious values in an- 
other way. They raise the intellectual 
values above the moral values of reli- 
gion. Some Trinitarian churches will 
hardly admit to membership men and 
women of the Unitarian faith, no mat- 
ter how morally upright they may 
be. With them such rare personages 
as Channing, Emerson, Samuel Long- 
fellow, James Freeman Clarke, Ed- 
ward Everett Hale and others, were 
they living to-day, would have to be ex- 
cluded from the fold, no matter how 
consecrated to the cause of righteous- 
ness they might be. Our Presbyterian 
brethren are loath to admit to the min- 
istry, if, indeed, they will admit him at 
all, one who will not subscribe to some 


[40] 


Objections to the Creed 


of the more fundamental articles of the 
Westminster Catechism. He may be 
orthodox in character and conduct, but 
he is not regarded as such in doctrinal 
belief, hence he must not be given the 
right hand of ministerial fellowship, 
and must be denied the privileges to la- 
bor for the Kingdom of God in connec- 
tion with this communion that are to 
be accorded to those who believe in orig- 
inal sin, predestination, the second ad- 
vent, the resurrection of the body, and 
other doctrines, some of which, at least, 
many honest minds and righteous souls 
find it difficult, if not, indeed, impossi- 
ble to accept. One cannot be admitted 
to membership in many Baptist churches 
who does not believe in and con- 
form to their requirements in regard 


[41] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


to baptism. The respective churches 
of this denomination may not have a 
formal creed, but the views of this sac- 
rament that some of them require for 
admission to church membership are in 
reality a creed. One may be the most 
righteous man in the community and 
yet, unless he subscribes to these views, 
he will be denied by some of the 
churches of this denomination the aid 
to righteousness that may be received 
through churchly intercourse and spir- 
itual fellowship with the excellent peo- 
ple who constitute the membership of 
many of the churches of this large and 
influential organization, because he is 
regarded a heretic in his belief and con- 
duct as they relate to the sacrament of 
baptism. But our friends of the de- 
[42] 


Objections to the Creed 


nominations referred to above are not 
alone in this unfortunate exaltation of 
theological or doctrinal values above — 
the moral values of our religion. It 
would, undoubtedly, be impossible for 
many so-called Modernists, no matter 
how consecrated to the cause of 
righteousness they may be, to gain ad- 
mission to membership in such organ- 
izations as the Episcopal, Lutheran, 
Reformed, Methodist, and many other 
evangelical churches. The difficulty 
relates to our conception of worths. 
There is an over-valuation here of intel- * 
lectual belief in the religious life. 
This excessive evaluation has been and 
is responsible for much of the hostility 
toward the creed. It is claimed that, 
although theoretically these churches 
[ 43 ] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


do not always subordinate the moral to 
the intellectual values of religion, they 
do so practically. Righteousness, it is 
urged, is the supreme essential in the 
Christian life, and this may be attained 
just as well, if not, indeed, better by re- 
jecting a creed that affirms that all men 
sinned in Adam; that from all Eternity 
God ordained some to be saved and 
others to be damned; that embodies ex- 
treme views of the sacraments; that re- 
quires acceptance of certain eschatologi- 
cal views—views of the resurrection, 
judgment and destiny that seem to be 
almost an insult to both God and Man; 
and other objectionable affirmations and 
requirements. So that, in this defective 
sense of values, the creed often proves 


[44] 


Objections to the Creed 


to be a hindrance rather than an aid to 
religious progress. 

These are the main objections that 
have been urged against the creed. 
They are, indeed, formidable in their 
character. When we compare them 
with the arguments in favor of it what 
are we to say in regard to its desirabil- 
ity ? 


[45] 


CHAPTER IV 
THE DESIRABILITY OF A CREED 


T is the writer’s belief that most of 
the arguments in favor of the creed 
are valid. It does enable us to 

compare and differentiate the Christian 
religion from other religions; it does 
enable us to distinguish the various 
Christian sects from one another; it 
does furnish a basis for Church organi- 
zation and serve as a bond of union; it 
does make for definiteness and clear- 
ness of conception and thus for efficiency 
of Christian conduct, and for the 
alleviation and prevention of doubt and 


[46] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


skepticism so often due to the vague- 
ness and nebulosity of religious concep- 
tion; it is a confession, and confession 
is good for the soul; it is helpful in pro- 
moting Christian education, and it is 
a valuable aid in religious worship. All 
of this must in fairness be conceded. 
But what of the opposing arguments? 
These appear to be equally valid and 
forceful. The Creed does interfere 
with the rights of private judgment 
and conscience; it does make against 
church unity and for sectarian bit- 
terness and strife; it does, because of 
the conflict of beliefs manifest in creeds, 
cause skepticism and indifference; it 
does represent a serious over-valuation 
of the intellectual worths of religion at 
the expense of the higher ethical val- 
[47] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


ues. What, then, is to be done? Our 
answer is that, since a creed may be 
very helpful, for the reasons just out- 
lined, the Church’s attitude toward it 
should be determined by the possibility 
of so constructing it that really valid 
objections will disappear. This may 
be done by framing it in such a manner 
that acceptance of its contents will 
prove exceedingly helpful to salvation 
—meaning by salvation the realization 
of the supreme values of life. More 
specifically, the creed should contain 
three fundamental articles of Christian 
belief, each one of which is most helpful 
to the life of righteousness. The fol- 
lowing articles are of this character: 
I. I believe in Jesus’ conception of 
God as the righteous Father who de- 
[48] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


sires and Jabors for the righteousness 
of his children. 

II. I believe in Jesus’ conception of 
the law of love, “Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
with all thy soul, and with all thy 
strength, and with all thy mind; and thy 
neighbor as thyself,” as the supreme 
and all-comprehensive law of righteous- 
ness. 

Itt. I believe in Jesus’ conception 
of the immortality of the righteous soul. 

Of course, articles I and III of this 
creed are really implied in article II, 
when we study this article in connection 
with the conversation of Jesus in which 
it was uttered. But there are advan- 
tages in rendering them more articulate 
and explicit. 


[49] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 





A brief consideration of these articles 
of faith will make it evident that they 
are exceedingly helpful to salvation; 
that is, to the realization of the highest 
values. In the first place, is not be- 
lief in a God of righteousness who is 
in the world, working for righteous 
ends, who is our Father, sympathizing 
with us, and ready to aid us in the moral 
struggle, a tremendous inspiration and 
help to every soul who is seriously try- 
ing to work out his own soul’s salvation 
and endeavoring to help others to do 
the same? Often the battle is fierce; 
often virtue is defeated and vice tri- 
umphant; often injustice seems to be 
on the throne and righteousness in the 
dust; often the wicked flourish like a 
green bay tree and the righteous are 


[50] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


forsaken; often the moral world seems 
to be a veritable contradiction, and in 
discouragement the struggling soul 
cries out: “Who is sufficient for these 
things?” Sometimes, indeed, it 1s 
nearly convinced of the hopelessness of 
the struggle and is almost ready to give 
up in despair. In the life of everyone 
earnestly striving for the realization of 
the highest worths it is a tremendous in- 
spiration and aid to feel that no mat- 
ter whether clouds and darkness be 
round about Him, justice is the habita- 
tion of His throne; that there is “a 
Power not ourselves in the world that 
makes for righteousness,” and that this 
Power is our Father, who is interested 
in our moral welfare, and that we are 
co-workers with Him in establishing the 


[51] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


kingdom of righteousness in our own 
hearts and in the heart of the race. 
This first article of our proposed creed 
is not only helpful, but in many cases, 
almost necessary for salvation, if we 
are to conceive of salvation in terms of 
righteousness. 

The second article is also helpful to 
salvation. It gives us a positive rather 
than a negative conception of it. It 
is not fleeing from the wrath of God to 
come; from eternal burning; from ever- 
lasting remorse. It is a realization of 
the law of love. Salvation is the mor- 
alization of life, of our relations with 
God, with our fellow-men, and with our- 
selves. ‘lo be saved we must know what 
salvation is and what is the law govern- 
ing it. This second article gives it to 


[52] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


us with the authority of the Master and, 
in the judgment of the writer, with the 
authority of the rational spirit, in Je- 
sus’ significant reply to the tempting 
lawyer who asked him what he had to 
do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asked 
him, ““What is written in the law? How 
readest thou?” ‘The lawyer answered: 
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy strength, and with all thy 
mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” 
And Jesus said unto him, “Thou hast 
answered right: this do and thou shalt 
live.” There is no Body of Divinity, 
no system of religious metaphysics, no 
series of theological dogmas, the accept- 
ance of which is required as a con- 
dition of inheriting eternal life. ‘There 


[53] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


is no requirement of subscription 
to a creed affirming incomprehensible 
doctrines of the Trinity and Incarna- 
tion; there is no obligation to believe in 
a creed affirming the second coming of 
Christ, the resurrection of man’s bodily 
organism, the last judgment, and en- 
trance of the evil into everlasting fire. 
« What its necessary for inheriting eternal 
hfe is, to put forth our best efforts to 
live righteously—to love God, neighbor, 
and self with our whole heart, soul, 
mind, and strength. That, indeed, is 
a sufficiently difficult task without be- 
ing compelled to accept a system of re- 
ligious metaphysics and questionable 
affirmations of men who, however ear- 
nest and consecrated, have unfortu- 
nately developed a wrong sense of val- 


[54] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


ues within the sphere of the Christian 
religion. Let us accept the teaching 
of our Lord and Master and adopt as 
one of the principal articles of our faith 
that which he affirmed to be necessary 
for inheriting eternal life, viz.: to love 
God supremely and our neighbor as 
ourselves. 


The third article, “I believe in Jesus’ * 


conception of the immortality of the 
righteous soul,” is also exceedingly 
helpful to salvation. 'To believe thor- 
oughly in the immortality of personal 
worth, is certainly with the average man 
a great incentive and inspiration to at- 
tain it. If Virtue’s destiny be the dust; 
if the righteous spirit’s goal be annihila- 
tion; if death means thus far and no 
further; the soul is robbed of one of its 


[55] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


most powerful incentives to righteous 
purpose and action. As the writer has 
said elsewhere,’ such rare spirits as 
Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Huxley, and 
George Eliot may not need the encour- 
agement of belief in the immortality of 
personal worth in order to practice vir- 
tue, but, with most of us, zeal for right- 
eousness would be far less earnest were 
we to believe that the soul exemplifying 
it has no higher destiny than “dust and 
ashes.” But, according to the Chris- 
tian faith, we go from grace to grace, 
from glory to glory in the moral life. 
As Browning says, “from lower levels 
to higher levels.” In striving for these 
higher values in which salvation lies, 
we strive for eternal values. How can 

1 Religion and the Future Life, New York, 1923, 


[56] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


such a belief fail to prove helpful to the 
soul earnestly seeking salvation if he re- 
gard salvation as the perfecting of the 
soul in righteousness? Of this immor- 
tality of personal worth our Christian 
faith assures us, and, inspired and 
greatly encouraged by it, we labor on 
no matter how dark the day, how fierce 
the struggle, how discouraging the en- 
vironment, and how apparently meagre 
the immediate results. We are con- 
scious that we strive not for the worths 
that perish, but for the transcendent 
values that are eternal. 

It is evident, then, that a creed con- 
taining these three fundamentals of 
Christian faith is vitally helpful in our 
efforts to realize the great end of the 
Christian religion—salvation, or the 


[57] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 





moralization of life. Furthermore, it 
also removes the serious objections that 
are urged against a formal statement or 
confession of faith. In the first place, 
it does not substitute authority for free- 
dom of private judgment and con- 
science. Practically all Christian sects 
accept these three articles, Catholic 
and Protestant, Fundamentalist and 
Modernist alike, confess them. Of 
course there are many differences of 
opinion among them as to the philoso- 
phy of these three beliefs, but not with 
reference to the truth and vital impor- 
tance of the beliefs themselves. ‘To be 
asked to publicly confess them would, 
therefore, not be regarded as a restric- 
tion of personal liberty or freedom. So 
that the adoption of this creed would re- 
[58] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


move the somewhat formidable objec- 
tions relating to the substitution of au- 
thority for freedom. 

Again, being so broad and catholic 
in its character, it removes the doctrinal 
basis, so far as the fundamentals of the 
Christian faith are concerned, for sec- 
tarianism and the waste, division, and 
strife that it involves. It would thus 
make for unity and for the strength that 
les in union. This, undoubtedly, 
would prove a great gain to the Chris- 
tian Church. 

In the third place, it removes the 
ground for reaction against the creed 
which so often takes on the form of re- 
ligious indifference or skepticism, based 
on diversity and conflict of religious 
belief. Here we can say to the world: 

[59] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 





“We all agree on what is fundamen- 
tally essential. Our differences relate 
merely to things subordinate.” 

Again, this creed removes the obsta- 
cles to missionary work which arise be- 
cause of sectarian creeds. Those whom 
the missionary aims to reach could, 
without serious trouble, be made to see 
that fundamentally all Christian sects 
are in agreement; that their differences 
largely concern things that are not ab- 
solutely essential. 

Finally, it removes the objection 
growing out of an over-valuation of 
what is subordinate, and often of what 
is of little or no importance in so-called 
Christian belief. It states the ulti- 
mate objective of the Christian religion 
and declares the law by which it is to be 

[60] 


The Desirability of a Creed 


realized. This would prove a great 
gain. Hardly anything, except delib- 
erate sin itself, is such a serious obstacle 
to Christian progress as this mistaken 
sense of values. It diverts the travel- 
ler from the main road. To remove 
the cause of this diversion by setting 
clearly before his vision the real goal 
of his journey and the direct road to it, 
would prove to be of incalculable ad- 
vantage to him. 

Thus we see that a creed embodying 
the three fundamental articles of the 
Christian faith is not only directly help- 
ful to the attainment of salvation—to 
the realization of right relations be- 
tween God, neighbor and self,—but it 
also removes serious objections that are 
very naturally and justifiably urged 

[61] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


against creeds that impose subordinate, 
and often unnecessary, articles of be- 
lief as necessary for salvation or for ad- 
mission to membership in the Christian 


Church. 


[62] 


CHAPTER V 
TOLERATION AND UNITY 


HILE thus commending, as 
we have in the foregoing 
section, the formulation 

and use of a creed that will be helpful 
in establishing the individual and _ so- 
ciety in righteousness, its content should 
be limited to the three articles that we 
have considered. All else relating to 
belief should be excluded, either because 
of its non-essential or relatively non- 
essential character, or because it makes 
for harmful division and waste, or be- 
cause it implies, in the judgment of a 


[63] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


large body of Christian believers, a 
misinterpretation of Christian truth. 
However, we should not be intolerant. 
In things relating to Christian belief 
that are not included in the creed we 
should respect the judgment and con- 
science of our brethren who differ from 
us. If aman believe in the Trinitarian 
conception of the Godhead, in the im- 
maculate conception, in original sin, in 
predestination, in the bodily resurrec- 
tion of Christ, in his descent into Hades, 
in the second coming, in the bodily res- 
urrection of man, in everlasting damna- 
tion of the wicked, in heavenly bliss for 
believers, etc., that is his own affair. 
Why persecute him? On the other 
hand, if a man disbelieve in some, or 
even all, of these doctrines, why be in- 


[64] 


Toleration and Unity 


tolerant and tyrannical and endeavor 
to expel him from, or forbid his entrance 
into, the Christian fold, or any division 
of this fold? Tolerance and charity 
should be our attitude in these things 
that are subordinate. Nothing of real 
worth is gained by intolerance and per- 
secution. It is really un-Christian in 
character and makes against rather than 
for the great end for which the Church 


exists. Were we to stress the funda- ~ 


mentals as stated in the three articles of 
our creed, and to allow the utmost free- 
dom in regard to all else pertaining to 
the Christian faith, what a tremendous 
advantage would accrue to the Church! 
It would mean a clearer vision of the 
great end of our religion,—the consum- 
mation of the Kingdom of Righteous- 
[65] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


ness in the heart of the individual and 
in the heart of society,—a long step 
forward in our efforts to bring into be- 
ing “the new heavens and new earth 
wherein righteousness shall dwell’; a 
more definite conception of the means 
by which the goal of the Church is to 
be realized; a far greater unity of spirit 
and effort in our attempts to attain it. 
It would result in eliminating much 
bitterness, strife, and waste. It would 
give us an organized fellowship in 
which the tie that binds would be the tie 
of Christian love,—‘‘a fellowship of 
kindred minds like unto that above.” 
All of this would mean a much more 
rapid progress of the Kingdom of God 
upon earth. 

Why should this be regarded as 

[66 | 


Toleration and Unity 


Utopian? Candidly, is it not sound 
reason and our solemn duty? ‘The re- 
sponsibility of Christian leadership is 
very great to-day. ‘The Church has an 
Herculean task before it in trying to 
bring in the reign of Righteousness. 
But, as Bishop Manning said recently, 
“In the face of the world’s greatest 
need, the Church stands enfeebled and 
weakened by controversy and conflict 
between Christians, resulting in a tre- 
mendous loss of energy and resources.” 
This is undoubtedly true. Why then 
waste our time and energy in quarreling 
among ourselves over things that are 
not absolutely necessary, and some of 
which are in reality harmful, when the 
need of the most united effort is so ur- 
gent? Let us accept our Lord’s sense 


[67] 


Shall We Have a Creed? 


of values as illustrated in His life and 
teaching, embody it in a simple creed, 
and go forth as a united church to the 
conquest of evil and the triumph of 
good. 

“MASTER, WHAT SHALL I 
DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL 
LIFE? AND HE SAID UNTO 
HIM, WHAT IS WRITTEN IN 
THE LAW? HOW READEST 
THOU? AND HE ANSWER- 
ING SAID, THOU SHALT LOVE 
THE LORD THY GOD WITH 
ALL THY HEART, AND WITH 
ALL THY SOUL, AND WITH 
ALL THY STRENGTH, AND 
WITH ALL THY MIND; AND 
THY NEIGHBOR ‘AS THY- 

[68] 


Toleration and Unity 


SELF. AND HE SAID UNTO 
HIM, THOU HAST ANSWERED 
RIGHT: THIS DO, AND THOU 
SHALT LIVE.” 


[69] 


UTNE RS MU et Pea 
Daya e178. ; 





chs a i a 
Ly Wo? VU eee hy ie Wu abe Ty 
2 Ae f 
if, ht : 4 ie iy, ; 
7 « « ; 7 a J “s ‘* 
Sep iti _ ts ‘. iy AY é im Nw bet . 
Li we iii f he We, 
j iy RA We i re 
: ti \ i il ak: 
\ Videara, OS eres § ae 
; } 1 te : 
CAP AE Rl Wey Mi tr, rh Stas 
ne aii yout ere ate 
PAT cay ' on a ? See By 
Sat ata 4 as 4 . 
: hy . b, AG a 
hake | eae | ts 7% UP, wih Xr Pe 
Abe vy y Ae he hi Le 
% \ i tet Tait 
! , ps hee y AP 
7 ? ay os a Pee PCASAY iw 
Ay 4 i. oo fe Ua ae YON 
ely OX | ht 
; rr 1? , ‘ , 
:) va J 
‘ , ] ; 
{ . wy't H 
~ y , } ; \ 
> : ViG sf ae, ie peat } 
: Lf ok 
' ; , y ‘ ’ 
, < sf iy ’ 
j 
i 
AS . ae 
, ¥ 
' 
i 
‘ . 4 
i r ai 
t Hi 
t 
' ( 
¢ ‘ : 4) 
yh eet ee r 
" sh) i 
; J J 


yj . ir 
; rly Wa 
; ‘ ; 5 : 
Wn ." ‘ s 
‘i i Agte 4 
}; : hyey 
; I ¢ S bi 
‘ 


1 
; i 
44 
” i - ' 
' ; 
; ' 
. oe i : 
T) b ' 
iy 
LJ ‘ 
t a 
aah 
rp alee ai 
Healy ; 
| i 
1, i 
i 
J y 7 + 
y) i 
ia | é 
" 
j 
{ 
: 
‘ 
‘ i \ 
7 F 
Bix fi 
t 4 
¥ i ; 
oy ee f : 
ay J 
, f 
i re Le A) nf 
’ ? ; ] f My 
it, Fi i 1 ¥ 
y a4 
, ; ‘ 
ivy 
‘ ‘ 
xe ) 
mead | 
; 
A 
Al 





ee ay at 
ai ¥ ; ae 





01013 0 


6 


T 





Tin 


2 


